Is E=Mc² a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which goes faster. Irigaray, Luce. Parler n’est jamais neutre. Éditions de Minuit. 1987. p.110. (Quoted in and translated by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Intellectual Impostures, London: Profile Books, 1998, p.100.)
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/luce-irigaray/quotes/
It is notoriously difficult for Anglo-Saxons to understand the French, as their way of talking is oblique and not literal. In this way, the whole of French philosophy is opaque to literalists, who can pontificate and object until their bovines greet them at the dusk, but will not make any progress.
For the unsophisticates: she is playing with an idea. “Perhaps…” and “Let us suppose…” introduces a playful modality. Already, you need to assume she isn’t making an analytical statement of the sort that are most common in America, when you are trying to advance an argument. So, if we keep in mind that she is not American, or British, what is the argument that she is really trying to advance?
Well, the speed of light stands for something else. It is in fact related to Western notion that male sexuality is primarily visual. To decode the puzzle: the primacy of male sexuality is a sexed equation.
Are we aware that Irigary is concerned with sexuality as it relates to gender? She is not your typical, puritanical USA feminist, in that she is totally concerned with sex.
So, if she is concerned with discussing sexuality, rather than criticizing science, which is in fact what she is doing, what might she be obliquely suggesting?
To recap: she doesn’t think that sexuality should be given over to the primacy of the viewer who is nominally male. She wants something else and why not? Could it be so bad?
What might be her equation that is not narrowly sexed male? A human equation, maybe?
Is it possible for Anglo-Saxons to follow this chain of thought all the way through, or does it take a Zimbabwean woman to explain this to you?
Exploring Black Sunlight, psychology, politics and history and how these intertwine 
It probably does, but I’m pretty sure I’ve spent too much time trying to work it all out already… even going so far as to calculate that one could replace the speed of light squared portion of the equation with the speed of sound to the power of 6.722231 thus proving Irigaray’s hypothesis to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Anyway, Dawkins’ objection seems a bit strange because it means that either science isn’t at all objective or he feels threatened by Irigaray’s analysis of sexuality… or maybe he and his army of parasites don’t know shit form shit and he just writes crap that will score easy money from the boys’ club. In any case, I know for a fact that reading just a few paragraphs of his ‘postmodernism disrobed’ made me at least a bit more stupider.
Is it wrong to take gleeful pleasure in the intellectual incompetency of anti-feminists generally? I notice that on YouTube, this anti-Irigaray meme is getting around like so much mental corrosion. I feel no real urge to set anybody right.